Birth of Earth

Unlike OilIsMastery, you seem to know what you are talking about (and much more than me about "plate tectonics") but this seems strange to me. I thought that the Andes Mountains were a direct result of the Pacific plate moving under them (More lighter rocks "floating higher") very much like the Indian plate building the Himalayas. Clearly the very existence of tall mountain, despite rain erosion and the resultant large river deltas, DEMANDS subduction.

Apologies for the confusion in my statement. I meant that the only way that Hawaii (on the Pacific plate) and Peru (South American plate) can move closer is if the Pacific plate is directly subducting under South America and there was no spreading ridge between them. There is a spreading ridge between these two plate (East Pacific Rise, which is between the Nazca and Pacific plates). As has already been pointed out, it's the Nazca plate that is being subducted (rather rapidly too!) under South America.
 
dear all
do not waste the time go to saw mill see the log cutting. you will see the results earth formation.
1. you will see the subduction zones in log
2. see the black plates
see lot of similarties of earth formation.so do not waste the time hurry to saw mill.
 
Apologies for the confusion in my statement. ...
Not needed. If any are needed, they would be due from me.
I was ignorant of the existence of the separate Nazca plate which is driving under the Andes Mountains. It is the "Nazca plate that is being subducted (rather rapidly too!) under South America." to quote your words.

I have not followed this thread much but OIM appears to be denying the existence of subduction. How does he explain the existence of tall (and in some cases even growing taller) mountains if not by subduction. Surely he does not deny the obvious mountain destroying process called erosion - one need only look at the large river deltas to see it is real. Logical thought does not seem to be OIM's strong point so perhaps inconvenient facts are just ignored?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have not followed this thread much but OIM appears to be denying the existence of subduction. How does he explain the existence of tall (and in some cases even growing taller) mountains if not by subduction. Surely he does not deny the obvious mountain destroying process called erosion - one need only look at the large river deltas to see it is real. Logical thought does not seem to be OIM's strong point so perhaps inconvenient facts are just ignored?

The "standard" explanation in EE theory is that mountains are caused by lighter material rising up, in turn caused by phase transitions, thermal expansion and gravitation (this info comes from Wikipedia). Whilst this explains how the mountain gets there and forms, but doesn't explain the compressional tectonics that are observed (thrust faulting, etc), the Pressure-Temperature profiles (PT) paths and the presence of ecolgite facies (high pressure high temp), or indeed blueschist facies, which require low temperatures and high pressure. Moreover, it also doesn't explain "suture zones", such as is observed in the Lake District of UK where Scotland and England collided in the Silurian/Ordovician (the Iapetus suture) - the rocks are derived from different continents, shown by fossils and lithofacies and are now joined together.

Hope that helps.
 
The "standard" explanation in EE theory is that mountains are caused by lighter material rising up, in turn caused by phase transitions, thermal expansion and gravitation (this info comes from Wikipedia). Whilst this explains how the mountain gets there and forms, but doesn't explain the compressional tectonics that are observed (thrust faulting, etc), the Pressure-Temperature profiles (PT) paths and the presence of ecolgite facies (high pressure high temp), or indeed blueschist facies, which require low temperatures and high pressure. Moreover, it also doesn't explain "suture zones", such as is observed in the Lake District of UK where Scotland and England collided in the Silurian/Ordovician (the Iapetus suture) - the rocks are derived from different continents, shown by fossils and lithofacies and are now joined together.

Hope that helps.
Thanks. But your more informed objections are not needed. Simply entropy increases would do. Let’s assume that initially there was more "lighter material" at the location of a mountain. Erosion would dispersed it very rapidly compared to the age of the solid surface Earth.

Mountains could not exist now. By now that original lower entropy state with a mountain would have the maximal entropy state with uniform distribution of the lighter material all over the globe.
 
Thanks. But your more informed objections are not needed. Simply entropy increases would do. Let’s assume that initially there was more "lighter material" at the location of a mountain. Erosion would dispersed it very rapidly compared to the age of the solid surface Earth.

Mountains could not exist now. By now that original lower entropy state with a mountain would have the maximal entropy state with uniform distribution of the lighter material all over the globe.

Unfortunately that argument does not work as there would be continual generation of new material due to changes in the mantle. In the plate tectonics model diapers, batholiths, etc are generated via partial melting of the subducting slab and/or heating of the lower continental crust (hence why we get andesitic magmas even at ocean-ocean collisions). Under the EE model the diapers etc would form due to changes in the mantle, I would guess, so mountains would still form continuously. I could envisage a mechanism similar to the hotspots where it would heat the lower mantle, causing partial melting and raising the land surface, for example. However, this mechanism fails to address several observable features, such as the compressional tectonics and the P-T paths as I very briefly mentioned above.
 
Unfortunately that argument does not work as there would be continual generation of new material due to changes in the mantle. In the plate tectonics model diapers, batholiths, etc are generated via partial melting of the subducting slab and/or heating of the lower continental crust (hence why we get andesitic magmas even at ocean-ocean collisions). Under the EE model the diapers etc would form due to changes in the mantle, I would guess, so mountains would still form continuously. I could envisage a mechanism similar to the hotspots where it would heat the lower mantle, causing partial melting and raising the land surface, for example. However, this mechanism fails to address several observable features, such as the compressional tectonics and the P-T paths as I very briefly mentioned above.
But if, as OIM does claim, there is no subduction, then the mantle is also subject to entropy increase - getting more uniform all the time. (Except for possible uniform radial density induced variations - no way a particular Lat. & Longitude to concentrate lighter material.) How can the lighter stuff concentrate?

I of course am firmly convenced that subduction is real, but OIM rejects that. Hence he is logically inconsistent if claiming mountain building is by some mechanism that causes the mantle to concentrate the lighter rocks under where the mountain forms, I believe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In EE theory, the mountains are a result of the "folding" of the land. As the Earth grows larger, different parts of a continent are going to move different directions at different speeds and anywhere the upper tectonic crust gets "bent" it folds upwards creating mountains.

This is why the peninsulas of Italy and India look so similar in the following video. They both have an area of flatlands where the area is being stretched (the red arrows) right before the mountaining that is taking place by the folding of the land right above it.

http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip07.html
 
pls try to understand that earth has biological growth only.no other possibility.i have lot of reasons and evidences that earth has biological growth only.
 
No, old son, you have a nutty idea that has very little supporting evidence (actually it's so little it's equivalent to zero).
Standing in a sawmill and concocting a theory about geology and geochemistry, is a helluva lot like looking at a tree and thinking the planet is a cosmic banana.
(I know, I tried it)
 
But if, as OIM does claim, there is no subduction, then the mantle is also subject to entropy increase - getting more uniform all the time.
How do you know that?

(Except for possible uniform radial density induced variations - no way a particular Lat. & Longitude to concentrate lighter material.) How can the lighter stuff concentrate?
Very easily.

I of course am firmly convenced that subduction is real, but OIM rejects that.
Correct.

Hence he is logically inconsistent if claiming mountain building is by some mechanism that causes the mantle to concentrate the lighter rocks under where the mountain forms, I believe.
Peridotite (mantle) and basalt (oceanic crust) are heavier than granite (continental crust) and we find the iron-rich rocks below the others. What's inconsistent about that?
 
Peridotite (mantle) and basalt (oceanic crust) are heavier than granite (continental crust) and we find the iron-rich rocks below the others. What's inconsistent about that?

That's not always true. There are some ophiolite sequences in the Himalayas, for example:
Photang thrust sheet: an accretionary complex structurally below the Spontang ophiolite constraining timing and tectonic environment of ophiolite obduction, Ladakh Himalaya, NW India.
RICHARD I. CORFIELD, MIKE P. SEARLE and OWEN R. GREEN
Journal of the Geological Society; October 1999; v. 156; no. 5; p. 1031-1044; DOI: 10.1144/gsjgs.156.5.1031

Abstract:

The pre-collisional tectonic evolution of the north Indian continental margin is best recorded in the few ophiolite complexes preserved, the largest of which occurs in the Spontang area of the Himalayas. Structural, sedimentological, palaeontological and geochemical work on the ophiolite and associated allochthonous thrust sheets has been carried out to constrain the timing and tectonic environment of ophiolite obduction. A distinct thrust sheet of accretionary complex rocks has been identified immediately underlying the ophiolite. Accreted units include thrust slices of tectonic melanges and alkaline basaltic lavas capped by limestones ranging from late Permian to late Cretaceous in age, interpreted as remnants of former seamounts. The accretionary complex formed above a north dipping intra-oceanic subduction zone during the Cretaceous, the Spontang ophiolite located in the hanging wall. Beneath the Photang thrust sheet, two further distinct, allochthonous thrust sheets of sedimentary melanges and continental slope deposits have been recognized. The structural relations of the allochthonous thrust sheets with the sediments of the north Indian margin have been mapped in detail and show clear evidence that obduction occurred in the late Cretaceous. At this time the Dras-Kohistan intra-oceanic arc had already collided with the southern Asian margin, over 1500 km to the north. Obduction of the Spontang ophiolite therefore records a separate tectonic episode in the Ladakh Himalaya.
 
That's not always true. There are some ophiolite sequences in the Himalayas
So? All that does is prove Earth expansion.

McCarthy, D.D., Ophiolites

Quoting Ford:

"In plate tectonics, ophiolites are interpreted as over-thrusted oceanic crust that has been "obducted" over continental margin crust. Many geologist seriously doubt the plausibility of obduction sheet geometry due to abundant contrary field relationships.

"In the Earth expansion model ophiolites are considered to be artefacts of extremely rapid tensional dome rifting that has exposed part of an intermontane sea's submerged rift zone due to very rapid uplift and spreading. This ophiolitic diapiric mantle material is then swept aside by the rapidly extending spreading centre and incorporated into the peripheral orogenic zone. Oceanic crust itself is a type of "ophiolitic" mantle derived material. Ophiolite exposures may also occur in areas of severe transverse faulting and crustal dilation as a "melange" component or as a mylonitised injection.

"Professor S. W. Carey, performed his doctorate field work in the Papua New Guinea highlands and was one of the first geologists to work within the area. This is what Carey had to say concerning the current plate tectonics proposed obduction explanation of ophiolite outcrops in PNG:

[Quoting Carey:]

"'...The current dogma, that the Papuan ophiolite is obducted
mantle, is simply a theoretical meme, and misfits the field geology
and gravity field. It is amazing that this body was the paradigm on
which the obduction concept was founded and followed by a
flock of academic sheep who have never been to Papua!..."

"'...The thrust contact between the ophiolites of Papua and New
Caledonia with the ophiolites over the sediments is not disputed
- only the dip of the contact- steep diapiric or flat obduction. Field
data and gravity favour the former, only creed the latter because
current dogma regards the Papuan ophiolite belt as a huge
obducted sheet shallowly dipping to the northeast. Indeed the
Papuan Ophiolite is the type area on which the obduction
concept was [initially] founded...'

"Recent research on the Oman ophiolite has confirmed that it is the result of mantle diapiric emplacement--not obduction! "

The "recent research" to which Ford was referring was the Newsletter of the US RIDGE Initiative:Volume 10, Number 1- June 1999 "Seismic Modeling of the Oman Ophiolite and Comparisons with Data from the East Pacific Rise Undershoot" By David Jousselin, Dept of Geological Sciences, University of Oregon. According to Jousellin:

.".. my Ph.D. thesis involved considerable field work in the Oman ophiolite. This ophiolite is believed to be derived from a paleo-fast-spreading ridge, in particular because of its continuous gabbro section which is attributed to an axially continuous magma chamber. My main accomplishments were a detailed structural mapping of the mantle section of three paleospreading centers (including the famous Maqsad area), and a microstructural analysis of peridotite samples from the studied areas. Our studies confirmed the occurrence of mantle diapirism below the Oman paleoridge and gave an improved image of this fundamental feature..."

Thus, it would seem that the Oman ophiolite, at the very least, supports Carey's model of ophiolite origin rather than conventional view. Moreover, some mainstream geologists contend now that ophiolites were never part of mid-ocean seafloor but formed in a fore-arc setting.

Regardless, a few, isolated segments of ancient seafloor on continents is not relevant to the fact that all current seafloor between the continents is less than 200 million years old -- and removing this youthful crust reunites both matching continental outlines and countless poor-dispersing trans-oceanic fossil taxa. This is true of every ocean including the Pacific.

Obduction is a myth.
 
Last edited:
if earth is expanding throw acceretion system than how subduction zone formed no possibilty. how different different minerals pockets formed. no possibility.
 
if earth is expanding throw acceretion system than how subduction zone formed no possibilty.
Exactly.

"Subduction exists only in the minds of its creators." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1976

"Subduction is a myth." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1988

how different different minerals pockets formed. no possibility.
Wrong.

In the context of Excess Mass Stress Tectonics - EMST the proton-neutron pair of the atomic nucleus, with MeV binding energies, represents the equilibrium, maximum tension of space, and the eV range electron cloud, the looser 'plasma' state where electrons accelerate from rest to light speed. Both fusion and fission involve the transformation of a smaller or bigger nucleus, to a more stable bigger or smaller one, respectively, and both converge to the max of ~8.8 MeV per nucleon of Fe56. These two spontaneously occurring processes are non-entropic, i.e., the products of both have higher nuclear binding energy/frequency as per E=hf. In fact, fusion and fission is nothing else than multiplication and division of a quantity by the same number, i.e., proportionality principle. Both involve a cyclic and linear extension component that increases frequency with time. Any excess energy input transforms an unpaired standing wave-energy into a paired standing wave-matter, or excess mass. So, elements form in the Earth's inner core, the equivalent of the atomic nucleus; accelerate from static to vmax in the 'plasma' outer core, and are emplaced atom-by-atom and in solid state around it, forming the mantle. Depending on structural constraints form compounds, crystals, minerals and rocks, in three phases: 1. The first pre-Fe, or pre-U phase, started long before 4.6 b.y.a. when H2, Li7, Be9, B11, He4, and N14, with nuclear binding from ~1.1 to ~7.5 MeV, formed. The first rocks on Earth, mostly as big monocrystals, were the Li, Be, B rich proto-pegmatites. 2. The second pre-Fe, or meta-U, phase starts ~4.6 b.y.a. and sets the radioactive decay clock with the ~7.6 MeV of U238 on the fission side, and the ~7.7 MeV of C12 on the fusion side. U and C entered into the crystalline structure of proto-pegmatites, thus forming the proto-kerogen, and CH4, the parent molecule of hydrocarbons. As the constant extension of space and the consequent frequency increase provided the higher binding energies per nucleon, elements like O, Na, Mg, Al, Si, S, K, and Ca, through fusion, and Th and Cs through fission, and minerals like spodumene, feldspar and quartz formed and entered into the crystalline structure of proto-kerogen and proto-pegmatites; gradually transforming them into kerogen and pegmatites, and the pegmatites into granites. So ~200 m.y.a. an all encompassing pegmatitic/granitic crust covered the surface of a smaller, ~60% its present radius, Earth. 3. The meta-Fe phase started ~200 m.y.a. when the 8.8 MeV of Fe56 was provided. The emplacement of Fe into the structure of preexisting minerals was associated with radiant heat due to the resonance of 'excess' electrons in microcracks, close to the Earth's surface; causing the pyrolysis of kerogen into coal, oil and gas, and the baking of kaolinite into shale. Minerals, like micas, olivine and pyroxene were formed, and of them rocks, first the BIFs and later diorite and gabbro, and the Earth grew to its present size.

Tassos, S.T., Element, Mineral and Rock Formation in the Context of Excess Mass Stress Tectonics - EMST, International Geological Congress Oslo, Aug 2008

Tassos, S.T., Excess Mass Stress (E.M.S.): The Driving Force Behind Geodynamic Phenomena, Proceedings of the International Symposium On New Concepts In Global Tectonics, Pages 26-34, Nov 1998
 
Back
Top